Ok so Saddam Hussein is going to get hanged

[Jwarmen]

Ok fine but was the price worth it?

cost:

-655 000 dead iraqis according to this scientific report (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4M3J0V5-1&_coverDate=10%2F27%2F2006&_alid=481583220&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4886&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d6a030f82db186776b3ce42df11ef735). Yup you read that right. 655 fucking thousand.

-2831 dead american troops. Not counting the injured. Injured meaning, paralysed, no legs, brain damage.

I'm sorry to make a political thread. I loath political threads because they get infested with rhetorical nonesense and personal agendas.

But you know what this is? It's just a war of ideals. The best argument of the christian chruch for 8 god damn centuries was the stake. Let's not talk about the merciless wars of the muslims.

Why is it that religion always tries to *impose* their beliefs on others? I'm an atheist but I don't go around telling people they're stupid because they believe in the miracles of christ.
I'm not going to raise my kids by telling them that god belivers are stupid. But I guarantee that religious families raise their kids by saying that people who don't believe in god are going to hell. I know it because I grew up in one.

I put too much thought into this and really it's all a big waste of time. Sure coorporations lobbied hard to go to Iraq to make money. Of course greed was behind it. But much more fundamentally it's about beliefs.

Religions can be good to teach good values and offer a sense of community. But religion has too much blood on its hands. It slaughtered whole freaking nations!

I want to puke.

[Grey Loki]

The entire thing has been a farce from start to finish. Still, at least now it's semi-finished, anyway.

[Sandro]

Religions can be good to teach good values and offer a sense of community. But religion has too much blood on its hands. It slaughtered whole freaking nations!

I want to puke.


Absolutely, It's evident that people take religious beleafs and values too literally. Yes, I am christian, but I am open to all religions. From a concept whos intent is supposed to bring people to peace and help humanity unite, turned into a blood shedding massacre of stupidity. Some people really don't think once and a while..

This whole thing about Sadam Hussien is pretty crazy ...

[Jwarmen]

Absolutely, It's evident that people take religious beleafs and values too literally. Yes, I am christian, but I am open to all religions. From a concept whos intent is supposed to bring people to peace and help humanity unite, turned into a blood shedding massacre of stupidity. Some people really don't think once and a while..

This whole thing about Sadam Hussien is pretty crazy ...

Absolutely.

Perhpas I generalised the idea that religious families are all the same. In fact, I have a bunch of religious friends who truly believe in good and never hastled me about my beliefs.

[gusjdt]

Hmm..

The Americans put Hussein in power and supported him, now they are hanging him? I find it a bit hypocritical, which doesn't surprise me anyways... I think Ol' Dubya should get the hanging. ;)

My 2 cents along with a few others I'm sure.

[rock_ya]

Hmm..

The Americans put Hussein in power and supported him, now they are hanging him? I find it a bit hypocritical, which doesn't surprise me anyways... I think Ol' Dubya should get the hanging. ;)

My 2 cents along with a few others I'm sure.

Yep, +1 :wink: . Americans keep doing that in our faces but I guess most of their people haven't got to understanding this yet.

[Grey Loki]

I didn't know they put him there in the first place. Just another reason to be annoyed with those strange people over the pond :P

Or their government and associated services, anyway.

[Awake]

Hmm..The Americans put Hussein in power and supported him, now they are hanging him?Ahem - we did not put him in power. Links to support that assertion please. And incidentally, note that Saddamcame to power between 1976 and 1979 - so if the United States did install Saddam, which I doubt, then more specifically, it was the Carter Administration that did it - another stunning success for Democrat foreign policy.

Now, to be sure, we supported him for a period in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran, and we did so because we percieved Iran as the greater threat to our national security interest at that time. Likewise, we supported some exceedingly unsavory regimes as the price of keeping the Soviets out of those countries, because the Soviets were deemed the principal threat at the time - and before that, we worked with the Soviets in World War II to beat the Nazis, because at that time the Nazis were the greater threat.

Foreign policy ain't beanbag; It must be nice to live in carebear land, where everybody gets along and nobody has to make tough choices, but the rest of us have to live here on plain 'ol planet Earth, where ofttimes, the choices are between bad and worse. In the 1980s, Saddam was bad, Khomeini was worse, and we were busy fighting the cold war. I realize a lot of people are too young by now to remember that right up until the moment the Berlin Wall fell, before the Soviet bloc imploded, very few people would have believed it was possible. You have to evaluate how reasonable an action was in the context of the time.

[Awake]

But you know what this is? It's just a war of ideals. The best argument of the christian chruch for 8 god damn centuries was the stake. Let's not talk about the merciless wars of the muslims.This war isn't about religion. The idea that this is Christians vs. Muslims is simply absurd; this is a war between a retrograde and militant faction of Islam, on the one hand, and, frankly, everyone else in the civilized world on the other.

[Andrea]

I'm simply against the death penalty...

[Asho]

I'm simply against the death penalty...

+1.

This war isn't about religion. The idea that this is Christians vs. Muslims is simply absurd; this is a war between a retrograde and militant faction of Islam, on the one hand, and, frankly, everyone else in the civilized world on the other.

I think its all totally illogical, however i would just like to say that i think theres a lot more to do with oil as well. Within the next 50 years we will likely see the world suffer an energy crisis, and with China and India emerging as 2 nations consuming huge ammounts of resources, and wishing to continue expanding, the US wants to ensure it has a stable (or somewhat) source of oil. Till we run out of oil.

Africa has numerous Islamic factions and organizations terrorizing the country, yet the US is none to keen on any major military deployment (to my knowledge), hell it doesnt seem to concern them that AIDS is spreading, and what about the death of millions of inccocents from starvation and plague??

Just raising the point.

[TheMayhem]

edit:

nvm


just go to the best site in the universe and take a look at the regressive party.


against abortion, for killing babies.


=P

[gusjdt]

Ahem - we did not put him in power. Links to support that assertion please. And incidentally, note that Saddamcame to power between 1976 and 1979 - so if the United States did install Saddam, which I doubt, then more specifically, it was the Carter Administration that did it - another stunning success for Democrat foreign policy.

Now, to be sure, we supported him for a period in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran, and we did so because we percieved Iran as the greater threat to our national security interest at that time. Likewise, we supported some exceedingly unsavory regimes as the price of keeping the Soviets out of those countries, because the Soviets were deemed the principal threat at the time - and before that, we worked with the Soviets in World War II to beat the Nazis, because at that time the Nazis were the greater threat.

Foreign policy ain't beanbag; It must be nice to live in carebear land, where everybody gets along and nobody has to make tough choices, but the rest of us have to live here on plain 'ol planet Earth, where ofttimes, the choices are between bad and worse. In the 1980s, Saddam was bad, Khomeini was worse, and we were busy fighting the cold war. I realize a lot of people are too young by now to remember that right up until the moment the Berlin Wall fell, before the Soviet bloc imploded, very few people would have believed it was possible. You have to evaluate how reasonable an action was in the context of the time.

Pardon me, but your history is completely wrong. Saddam did not come to power "between 1976 and 1979," the man rose to power as part of the CIA support of the Ba'ath party in the early 1960's. Regardless of who was in power in this country at the time, it was _we_ who supported the Ba'ath party and _we_ who made it possible for Saddam to come into power and demand (and obtain) four-star general status in the late 1960's.

Your history of our support for him is also wrong. We didn't just "supported him for a period in 1980," we provided him with billions of dollars of credit that he used to modernize his armies, consolidate control over the country and terrorize his opponents in all sorts of ways. We encourage other countries to do the same... where do you think the helicopters used to deliver those poison gas weapons came from? They were sold by France to Iraq at _our_ urging. Even the chemical weapons were traced right back to the US, to a depot in Georgia. What's funny is that the US did in fact acknowledge that it believed Iran was responsible for that mustard and nerve gas attacks on Kurds, and only changed their minds... wait for it... in the 1990's! National interests my ass. Commercial interests. As in Bush family oil interests, and Cheney Halliburton interests is what was truly behind a lot of the actions taken by our braindead government and politicians.

As to making bad choices, it is sheer stupidity to try to pass off very, very bad choices on the incredibly lame excuse that that's all we had to choose from. We knew exactly what kind of person Saddam was long before he came into power. We knew what kind of person he was when we supported him to the tune of billions of dollars. Our politicians and government did not make a tough choice, they made an incredibly stupid choice driven by what can only be described as idiotic policies.

This isn't 20/20 hindsight, BTW. It's solid criticism of stupid decisions made with full foresight and knowledge of the consequences.

[Awake]

Pardon me, but your history is completely wrong. Saddam did not come to power "between 1976 and 1979," the man rose to power as part of the CIA support of the Ba'ath party in the early 1960's. Regardless of who was in power in this country at the time, it was _we_ who supported the Ba'ath party and _we_ who made it possible for Saddam to come into power and demand (and obtain) four-star general status in the late 1960's.The Ba'Ath Party came to power in 1968, and Saddam became deputy to Ahmad al-Bakr. He became the commander of the Iraqi Armed Forces in 1976, and became President of Iraq in 1979. So while you're certainly correct that Hussein did not appear out of thin air at the start of the 1980s, and was active in the senior ranks of the Iraqi government for several years before he came to power, he none-the-less did not come to power until 1979.

[gusjdt]

Sorry, but I consider becoming second man of the Iraqi President plenty of power. He became al-Bakr's deputy in 1968, therefore he came to power in 1968. Either way, your reply said nothing regarding my previous points. My point originally was that Hussein was put into power by us, and was supported by us.

For the record, I'm not too fond of political debates, so I'd rather leave this as it is.